Libertés civiles - CDT Identifies Threats to the Internet and Civil Liberties in the Lame Duck Congress
Center for Democracy and Technology 20/11/06

"...Today, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) issued a special lame duck edition of its "Internet Watch List," identifying seven legislative efforts that cannot be allowed to succeed in the so-called "silly season" at the end of the 109th Congress..."

"..."The hectic, unstructured final days of the 109th Congress are no time to enact legislation that fundamentally undermine our basic civil liberties or that would drastically alter the Internet experience for millions of Americans," CDT Executive Director Leslie Harris said. "Defenders of the Internet and civil liberties have been successful thus far in preventing the worst bills from passing, but we can't afford to let our guard down now. These measures will pose a very real threat until this Congress takes its final bow."..."

Lire, Read :

Legislative Efforts To Ward Off in the Final Days of the 109th Congress
Center for Democracy and Technology 20/11/06


Energie, Sécurité - World Energy Outlook 2006
International Energy Agency 11/06

"The annual World Energy Outlook is the leading source for medium to long-term energy market projections and analysis and has achieved widespread international recognition. It is the flagship publication of the International Energy Agency."

Lire également, Read also :

World Energy Outlook 2006
CSIS 08/11/06


Etats-Unis, Irak - Condi qui pleure ?

Who Lost Iraq?
USNews 19/11/06

"...President Bush's acceptance of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's resignation was intended to signal a change in course on Iraq. But many national security experts say that Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser at the time of the invasion, and the National Security Council share much of the blame for the problems in Iraq. "She did not perceive, and the National Security Council did not assess, what is in the United States' interests and what is in the interests of our enemies," says retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, an outspoken critic of the war who served as military assistant to Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. "Once you make that basic mistake, there isn't any way to make the war come out good. It's all over."

With her ardent support for the invasion, Odom and others say, Rice was unable to play the traditional role of national security adviser-impartial broker in the rough-and-tumble of interagency government. That was further complicated by the fact that Rumsfeld all but ignored the input of other agencies, then never took responsibility for postwar reconstruction, leaving Rice to try to manage the Iraq rebuilding effort from the White House. "The people who took responsibility for the rebuilding of Iraq-that is, the office of the secretary of defense-expressed no interest in solving problems as problems appeared," says Franklin Miller, one of Rice's principal aides handling the reconstruction effort. "They never brought any issues to the table, and they never took any taskings away."..."


Lire également, Read also :

Another Teaspoon Of Artificial Reality
Nutrasweet, Splenda, saccharine, Neosweet and Condi Rice
Stop The Spirit Of Zossen 17/11/06


Etats-Unis, Irak - All about the Iraq Study Group
About the ISG, Members, Expert Working Groups, Participating Organizations, Fact Sheet, Online Resources from ISG Events, News Releases, Letter to Congress


Reconstruction, Post-conflit - A Primer on Interagency Coordination for Stability Operations
PCR-CSIS 16/11/06

"In November and December 2005, the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Bush administration issued two directives that addressed the importance of conducting stability operations and managing interagency efforts to conduct these operations. The first of these, DoD Directive 3000.05: “Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations”, explicitly made stability operations “a core US military mission” with priority “comparable to combat operations.” The directive also highlighted the fact that while post-conflict reconstruction operations should ultimately fall to civilians in the Defense and State Departments, the military would likely take the lead in restoring order and public services and in rebuilding damaged facilities following major combat operations.

Less than two weeks after the DoD issued 3000.05, the White House released National Security Presidential Directive-44 (NSPD-44) on the Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization. Where the DoD’s Directive described how the military would undertake security, stabilization, transition, and reconstruction activities, NSPD-44 outlined how the broader interagency community should operate. The goal was to avoid interagency disputes like those that erupted between State Department Foreign Service officials and the Pentagon early in the occupation of Iraq. To this end, NSPD-44 designated the Secretary of State the lead in improving coordination, planning, and implementation for reconstruction and stabilization assistance for foreign states and regions at risk of, in, or in transition from conflict or civil strife..."


Lire également, Read also :

Interview Michele Flournoy on the Future of Stability Operations
PCR-CSIS 16/11/06


Russie - The Fourth Russian Empire?
Georgi Derluguian, CSIS December 8, 2006

"Forget about transitions. In Russia, the transition from Communism was over in late 1993, after former president Boris Yeltsin prevailed in battles against his rivals in parliament, in the provinces, and in various economic sectors. It remained to be seen, however, how the post-collapse regime would consolidate itself and how far it could go. We now know most of the answers; the question is their future projections..."


Etats-Unis, France - Etats-Unis – France: La Logique de Cooperation
La Lettre Diplomatique 11/06

"Consultation et coordination; désaccord, déception, et récrimination; compromis et réconciliation... Au cours de l’été dernier, les relations franco-américaines ont connu toutes ces phases à cause de la guerre entre Israël et le Hezbollah. Et s’il reste à voir si les objectifs de la résolution 1701 du Conseil de sécurité, parrainée par la France et les Etats-Unis, seront réalisés, la nécessité d’une étroite coopération politico-militaire entre ce vieux couple vient d’être réaffirmée. Car après tout, Washington et Paris partagent des analyses similaires - quoiqu’elles ne soient pas identiques - sur plusieurs des principales menaces pesant sur la sécurité internationale : Tous deux s’inquiètent des rôles de l’Iran et de la Syrie au Liban. Personne ne croit que le soutien iranien au Hezbollah est indépendant du désir de Téhéran d’échapper aux efforts des « UE 3 » (France, Allemagne, et Royaume-Uni) et des Etats-Unis de lui bloquer la route de la mise au point d’une arme nucléaire. Ils partagent la même méfiance envers la Syrie, qui tient la France et les Etats-Unis comme responsables de sa sortie forcée du Liban, et rêve de tirer parti de son aide au Hezbollah pour rétablir sa tutelle sur son voisin déchiré. Les deux capitales sont conscientes du fait que l’impasse entre Israël et les Palestiniens nourrit l’extrémisme islamique et qu’un éventuel règlement « land for peace » (du territoire en échange de la paix) nécessitera des garanties de la part des grandes puissances et des organisations internationales comme l’ONU, l’OTAN, et l’UE. Quant à l’Irak, si la France garde sa distance vis-à-vis de ce qu’elle estime être un bourbier pour les Américains (et les Britanniques), elle ne veut pas voir non plus de retraite précipitée des forces de la coalition, ce qui risquerait d’entraîner une guerre civile totale et la fragmentation du pays en fiefs chiites, sunnites et kurdes..."


Liban - The Future of Lebanon
By Paul Salem, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2006

"Hezbollah's July 12 raid into Israel, backed by Iran, was intended to entangle Israel in a limited skirmish on its northern border and a drawn-out prisoner exchange at a time when Iran was facing mounting pressure over its nuclear program. Israel, backed by the United States, responded with a large-scale war meant to deliver a knockout blow to Hezbollah and thereby remove the missile threat to northern Israel, weaken Iran in any upcoming showdown, and eliminate what the United States considers a major opponent in the war on terrorism. Washington also hoped to give a boost to the Lebanese government, which it considered a potential democratic success story..."


Etats-Unis, Iran - Confronting Iran: Take Ahmadinejad with a grain of salt
Ray Takeyh, Los Angeles Times November 19, 2006

"If you think Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes outlandish comments, consider what Mao Tse-tung said to a visiting head of state in 1954: If someone else can drop an atomic bomb, then I can too. The death of 10 or 20 million people is nothing to be afraid of.

Nonetheless, 15 years later, a nuclear-armed China was not only contained by the world, it opted for normalization of relations with its archenemy, the United States. Today, it is fashionable to equate Ahmadinejad with Hitler, yet the lesson of the 20th century is that rash leaders can, in fact, be deterred. And Iran's president will prove no exception..."


Algérie, Terrorisme - Algeria's al-Qaeda Franchise
Center for Advanced Defense Studies 14/11/06

"Despite a reduction in the number of religious extremist groups in Algeria, the spread of al-Qaeda’s influence continues to grow, most notably in its official new alliance with the Algerian Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC)..."


Armement - U.S. Arms Still Dominate International Market, Russia Leader to Developing World
CDI 15/11/06

"On Oct. 23, 2006, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released the most recent version of its annual arms transfer report, “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005.” The report reveals that arms transfer agreements worldwide amounted to $44.2 billion in 2005, the largest total for arms agreements in the last eight years, and well above the 2004 sum of nearly $37 billion.  Of the 2005 total, $30.2 billion, or 68.4 percent, of arms transfer agreements were made with developing countries, the highest total since 1998.  In 2005, $17.7 billion out of $25.4 billion in worldwide arms deliveries (or 69.9 percent) went to developing nations..."

Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005
CRS Report for Congress


Lire également, Read also :

Russia eyes global lead in arms exports
By Sergei Blagov in Moscow for ISN Security Watch 24/11/06


Etats-Unis, Asie centrale - The U.S. Interests and Role in Central Asia after K2
by Eugene Rumer, The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2006

"Central Asia is remote, poor, and has few historical or cultural ties to the United States. Yet, the region's importance to Washington exceeds its value as a stepping stone to Afghanistan and a neighbor of both China and Russia..."


Espagne, Terrorisme - Spain's Operation Suez Reveals al-Qaeda Support Rings in Europe
Volume 3, Issue 45, November 21, 2006

"Two recent counter-terrorism developments in Spain highlight how Spanish officials are trying to confront the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. In the first incident, the attorney general attached to the Spanish Federal Court announced in mid-November that the court is seeking prison sentences—totaling 270,885 years—for the 29 Islamists involved in the March 11, 2003 (known as 11-M) terrorist attacks in Madrid, whose trials begin in February 2007. As part of the proceedings against the accused, the attorney general released a 2003 document prepared by Spain's intelligence agency, the Centro Nacional de Inteligencia (CNI), that had warned of Islamist terrorist attacks in Spain [1]. The second development concerns the Spanish National Police's arrest of four North African Muslims for their involvement in providing material support for an "Islamist terrorist organization," namely al-Qaeda..."